Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc.

I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Additionally, many posts in this blog contain original material and previously unreported news. Any media outlet, website or blogger that reports previously unreported news or quotes opinions obtained from this website is ethically obligated to credit me or my blog in their initial report on the subject.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

As I was doing some research on the proposal to expand the SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) by taxing cigarettes and cigars, I came across and interesting perspective from Marc Kilmer of the Buckeye Institute.

(For some background information on this issue, I recommend local blogger Smoke If You Got 'Em, who has a post on the issue as well as the response to a letter he sent to Sen. Sherrod Brown. Toledo Talk also has a thread on the issue.)

Kilmer starts with an challenging question:

"If a politician ever suggested that taxes should be raised on the poor in order to pay for a product that people in the middle or upper class could already afford, it is not likely that this politician would have much of a future in office. So why, then, are so many members of the U.S. House and Senate rushing to support an effort to raise cigarette taxes (which hit the poor much harder than the rich) to pay for expanding federal health insurance program to include many middle class families?"

The reason, he explains, that SCHIP needs more money isn't just because of increasing medical costs - it's because coverage is being expanded to children in families that should be able to afford medical coverage (in some states a family of four can make up to $83,000 and still qualify) - and to ADULTS. In my logic, this doesn't make sense, as such expansions seem to be directly opposite to the original intent of covering children in families who made too much to qualify for medicare, but not enough to purchase their own insurance.

Kilmer says, "In fact, according to a recent study by the non-partisan Tax Foundation, almost 60 percent of American children would be eligible for government health care under a proposal being pushed by some Senators. Can anyone say with a straight face that this is really about “poor kids”?"

He further explains that the idea for such taxes is because "smokers impose such a heavy burden on government health care programs" so it's logical that they should pay more for medical care. But he rightly points out that children aren't supposed to be smoking, so how do you justify the use of such fund for them?

Kilmer hits the nail on the head with this statement:

"Why tax smokers more to pay for this program, then? I think it has a lot to do with the fact that people like “free” government programs. They like the concept of government funding children’s health care, but they do not want to pay for it themselves. So they pick out a group of folks engaged in activities they do not like – such as smoking – and decide to tax them."

But before you go off on the Democrats who are supporting this, remember that there are plenty on the right side of the aisle who believe this expansion of government is a good idea. In fact, it was a Republican Congress that, in 1997, gave us (what was at the time) the largest expansion of government health care since 1965, when Medicaid and Medicare were created.

At the time of passage, Congress estimated SCHIP would cost taxpayers $48 billion over ten years. Ten years later, the current figure being bandied about is $5.04 billion per year, which is not that much more than what's been spent, on average, each year previously. But the kicker is that the re-authorization is only for five years and some estimate that the shortfall from the states during that time frame could be $7 billion - yes, billion with a 'b'...

Ironic - when the Democrats controlled Congress in 1993, the Clinton administration failed to pass a national plan for socialized medicine. But Republicans, in 1997, implemented the administration's backup plan. According to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a "kids first" strategy which could be implemented through Medicaid was the backup option in case the larger plan failed. Many rejected 'HillaryCare' as socialized medicine...but those same people willingly took the first step toward the end goal by passing SCHIP.

So why did the GOP do this? Some speculate that they caved to an effective Democrat strategy which went something like this: Let's propose a new government program for children and fund it with cigarette taxes. Then, if Republicans oppose "KidCare" we'll charge that they don't care about children and that the only reason they oppose it is because they get large sums of money from the tobacco industry. This was a brilliant political strategy and one that is duplicated in numerous issues today. How many times do you hear, in a campaign, that it's 'for the children'?

At the time of passage, there was concern that the program would encourage families and employers to drop private health insurance and take this new government subsidy.

Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office in 1997/1998 were that half of the participants in the new program would be families who gave up private insurance. And they had good reason for such expectations....In 1987, Medicaid was expanded to pregnant women and their children with incomes 250% of the poverty level. Between 1988 and 1995, the number of kids covered by private insurance fell 8 percentage points while the percentage of kids covered by Medicaid climbed 7.6 points. Some studies showed that at least 3/4 of the shift was the result of parents dropping private coverage for themselves and their children.

Another concern at the time was that SCHIP would eventually become mandatory, regardless of family income or need. With the current proposed expansion to higher income levels, it's not yet mandatory, but it looks like it will certainly become the 'insurance of choice' for those eligible, after all - if the government is going to pay for something, why should I?

In 1994, the Republicans won control of Congress by promising to reduce government. But they didn't. Recently, under the guise of 'compassionate conservatism,' Republicans continued to expand the scope and reach of the federal government. One would think they would have learned a good lesson from previous experiences - that it is almost impossible to roll back entitlement programs once they're created, especially health-care entitlements. Yet instead of learning that lesson, in 1997 Republicans helped create the largest health-care entitlement in 30 years. And then, in 2003, they exceeded their previous record by passing what became the largest expansion of health-care entitlements when they approved the Medicare Prescription Drug program.

If they support the proposed expansion of eligibility for SCHIP, they may get credit for paving the road to socialized medicine.

UPDATE:Fellow SOBers weigh in: Porkopolis has additional information on SCHIP and some good links, and One Oar in the Water shares thoughts about socialism and presidential candidate Ron Paul.

9 comments:

Personally, I'm tired of "the kids" routine. Why does everything have to be for the kids? What about me and other 28 year old dudes? What about us? I mean, it's not like we actually work and contribute to society and the economy. I know that most kids are contributing lots to society - like fart noises, yo' momma jokes, and lazy workers, but can you throw a buck my way once in a while. Seriously.

1. This is available for folks that make up to $83K. So we are providing medical care for the middle class, which mean this is in fact socialism. 2. We know full well that a tobacco tax will not fund such a program; and does anyone think that it will go away as a result? No, they will keep it going through more future taxes. This how socialism works and is implemented. 3. Lastly, as you aptly explained, the republicans are fully involved in this socialist scheme, so why should we support the RNC.

I hope people take the time and listen to Rep. Ron Paul. While I may disagree with 5 percent of his libertarian view, I support the other 95 percent. Ask yourself, are any of the other candidates talking about increasing freedom and reducing government like Mr. Paul. No they are not. Maybe Duncan Hunter and Sam Brownback are, but certainly not Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. These characters would certainly go along with SCHIP just like the apparatchik in Congress are doing.

Just because the State Children's Health Insurance Program says its for 'Children' doesn't keep states from insuring adults (emphasis added):

"What GAO Found:

SCHIP enrollment increased rapidly during the program’s early years but has stabilized over the past several years. As of fiscal year 2005, the latest year for which data were available, SCHIP covered approximately 6 million enrollees, including about 639,000 adults, with about 4.0 million enrollees in June of that year. States’ SCHIP programs reflect the flexibility the statute allows in structuring approaches to providing health care coverage. As of July 2006, states had opted for the following from among their choices of program structures allowed: a separate child health program (18 states), an expansion of a state’s Medicaid program (11), or a combination of the two (21). In addition, 41 states opted to cover children in families with incomes at 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) or higher, with 7 of these states covering children in families with incomes at 300 percent of FPL or higher.

As for covering Adults, I guess I'm glad the federal government gave some leeway to the states, but if a state wants to spend it's money on ADULTS, let them do so with their OWN funds - and not the federal funds...

But, if the feds - and especially the GOP - hadn't created this new entitlement program in the first place, we wouldn't be trying to prevent its expansion - or even having these discussions.

I've heard a lot of people say that this is the way to get people used to and accepting of government health care. If they grow up relying upon the government for their health coverage, they'll think it's normal when they become adults and they will then vote for people who support further expansions of such entitlements.

Brilliant strategy on behalf of the socialists...but sad...very sad that we'd let it happen.

The Gingrich Revolution really only lasted about 11 months and lost its way after the government shutdown confrontation in late 1995 early 1996.

The GOP took the "message" of the 1996 Prez election to be that they needed to be "more moderate." Wrong, but that set the stage for SCHIP, the college credit/deductions, and a lot of other ill-advised moves. Of course, the majority narrowed again in 1998.